Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Act passes without Idaho Stop

“Stop as yield” was added to the bill at the urging of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Working Group convened by Ward 3 Councilmember Mary Cheh last summer. The provision faced early opposition from some members of the group like AAA Mid-Atlantic and the Metropolitan Police Department. [WABA Director Greg Billing] says he isn’t “entirely shocked” by its removal.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Administration Act of 2016, introduced by Cheh, would require the District to publish the locations of high crash intersections and create a pedestrian and bicyclist priority area program. The program will designate safety enhancement priority locations around D.C. in areas with heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The District Department of Transportation will also be required to adopt a “complete streets” policy among other changes to existing law.

The Council has to vote on the bill again for it to pass.

There's a lot of good stuff in the bill that passed, but it's hard to not be disappointed by the removal of stop as yield.

There isn't even a clear explanation for why the stop as yield provision was removed from the bill. It isn't really mentioned in the committee report (where you can also fine a copy of the new bill) or in the article which speculates that it's due to the objections of the MPD and AAA.

MPD's objections, frankly, were nonsensical. In the Working Group meetings they seemed to focus on how the Idaho law was passed - that it was sneakily added in at the last minute (a claim which I don't think can even be supported). And they claimed that there was no evidence that it made the roads safer, a claim that was repeatedly refuted as there are a few - admittedly limited - studies that provide some evidence that they do. MPD isn't safety experts and it is arguably not appropriate for them to weigh in on safety issues. What they know is enforcement and if they have an enforcement issue with this, they never mentioned it.

As to the safety concern, when pressed by CM Elissa Silverman, Assistant Police Chief Lamar Greene said that he thought it was safer when all road users obey DC laws and regulations. His argument was, then, that the law shouldn't change because it's safer when everyone follows the law. But, of course, if this bill passed as is, then the laws and regulations would change so that cyclists who roll through stop signs when no one else has the right-of-way would be following the law.

When Silverman (who clearly supports stop-as-yield) asked him what his belief that the "stop-as-yield" change would lead to more crashes was based on and what evidence he had, he offered none but said that some of his colleagues had talked to some in law enforcement in Idaho and that they had shared his concerns. That was it.

AAA's objection is even worse. Why exactly would a motorist organization oppose stop-as-yield? It, in no way, harms drivers. If anything it should make traffic move more smoothly. AAA agreed to accept the provision in the working group, but then John Townsend set out to undermine it for what reason I don't know. He said during the January hearing that AAA had no opposition to it but then highlighted the fact that MPD was "diametrically opposed to it." Then they immediately went out and polled DC drivers to show that they opposed stop as yield.

In a survey of 1,085 D.C. drivers, conducted during the last week of January by Public Policy Polling for AAA Mid-Atlantic, they asked a question about the provision.

Six of 10 drivers licensed in the District say they oppose a proposed change in city law that would allow bicyclists to roll through stop signs. The measure, part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Act of 2015, is in response to demands from an increasing number of bicyclists in the city seeking greater protections and access to the road. If approved, the District would join a handful of jurisdictions nationwide that allow bicyclists to roll through traffic signs– when safe.

I haven't written about this, but I already see several problems here. First of all is how the question was phrased, which is unknown. I emailed Mr. Townsend several times to get the question that was asked and - surprise surprise - he never responded. Does the question ask if cyclists should be "allowed to roll through stop signs" because I'd expect such phrasing to poll badly. In addition, it's only a poll of DC drivers. Fewer than half of all DC residents even have a license. Did AAA ask non-drivers this question, but only report the opinion of drivers? Again, Townsend didn't respond and AAA didn't report. Finally 40% approval among drivers is actually better than I would have expected.

But since this provision was removed behind closed doors, we might never know why it was removed, or who wanted it gone and who wanted it to pass.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I figure that Townsend isn't opposing Idaho Stop so much for the technical reasons (I don't think he's a technical expert in anything), but rather to do what usually does which is fan the culture war flames in the sense of "war on cars"*. Hence, anything pro-cyclist is inherently anti-AAA's constituency.

This is the mysteriously new version of the bill that went to markup, with one other, last week. That hearing was pushed back four hours, but even after that the order of business was arranged to address the bike/ped safety act last in order to print a copy for chairwoman Cheh to actually read in.

What was read and passed (with no dissent and little discussion) was a combination of the recommendations that made it through the working group and some hastily drawn legislation in support of DDOT's emergency rulemaking around Vision Zero.

I really have to wonder why this was not proposed as (at least) two separate bills?

I suppose I shouldn't be disappointed, Idaho stop makes too much sense to become law. I still don't see why the police opposed it though, most of them already allow Idaho stop already. In an era where evidenced-based policing is hip, making an argument without evidence doesn't make much sense but again, not surprised. Maybe we should stage a "stop in" like at San Francisco's wiggle.

Do you know if the bill still includes higher fines for cars blocked in bike lanes? As I recall the proposal raised fines to $200 for private vehicles and $300 for commercial vehicles.

Currently it's $65 right now for both categories of vehicle and that's clearly not enough of a deterrent -- delivery truck drivers parked on 11th have flat out told me they don't care about tickets because their company will just pay for them. Recently I saw a truck, parked in the 11th street bike lane downtown, with two different parking tickets on the windshield, both from earlier that day. So it wasn't stopping the driver at all.

Anyway I hope these provisions are still in the bill. If anyone can confirm that I would love to hear about it.

DE, believe me, that point was made to MPD, but it didn't change their opinion at all. In fact it was a classic case of an opinion remaing the same even in the face of new information or corrected facts.

I agree with Crickey. Most motorists think that the Idaho stop is "special rights." I think we should focus on getting the rights we already have protected and enforced (e.g. not getting run over, assaults by cars taken seriously). In parallel, facilities that make it safer. Idaho stop should be a stand alone issue, later

Maybe a bit tone deaf, sure. But it's what almost all cyclists do and will continue to do anyway. When laws don't reflect reality, they aren't respected and are ignored more easily. But as a separate bill later, fine, whatevs. I and everyone else will just continue doing what we do anyway. As long as it's not enforced much so it doesn't impede the growth of cycling, thereby putting more cars on the road and adding to the gridlock and pollution. [For what it's worth, if police are present, I usually come to a full stop (track stand at least)--no use asking for trouble.]

I don't like having to break the law when I Idaho. I want to be predictable, alert, and lawful, and laws that make it impossible to be lawful when doing what 90% of cyclists do, are laws that should be changed. I have little doubt that the movement to legalize Idaho will move forward in some fashion. Maybe elsewhere in the US first, maybe by designating certain stop signs instead of doing it jurisdiction wide.

Ugh, really disappointed to hear the higher fines were taken out. I can't possibly imagine what the reasoning for that would be. The vehicles involved are parked illegally and dangerously, and it would bring in more revenue for the city (or reduce the dangerous parking, or some mix).

Is there any way to find out which member of the council was responsible for that change?

I would caution against people in cycling advocacy sites making blanket statements--guesses, really--about what percentage of cyclists are breaking the law. It's not okay when it's done to us for pejorative purposes, and it's not okay when it's done for self-serving purposes.

The pejorative is not that 90% of cyclists sometimes do an Idaho stop - its the claims that most are reckless, "blow through reds" etc. Just as it is not pejorative to state that 90% of drivers go at least one mile per hour over the speed limit, on occasion. And if we are getting "credit" in public discussions based on the idea that any significant number of regular, adult cyclists come to complete stops at all stop signs, everywhere and always A. I am not seeing that and B. It is based on a falsehood, and is not sustainable.

And of course it is not possible to discuss the damage of making a routine behavior illegal, if one is not allowed to discuss how routine the behavior actually is. Would we see reform in marijuana laws if people did not know how common use of marijuana was?

We need a convergence of evidence over several similar studies, as with any research, but Looking at bicyclist behavior in different type of situations as this study did, is much more important than blanket saying "everyone runs all intersections." Given decent infrastructure, the evidence is that people tend to follow the law.

So you want a study of how many cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs before DC addresses the Idaho stop again? Eh, okay. Though I would note that will depend on how you design the study. Far more cyclists stop at stops signs where and when there is cross traffic, pedestrians, etc, than at empty intersections (where the non lawfulness of Idahoing is most annoying).

I stand by my belief, based on personal observation and discussions with cyclists, that less than 10% of all adult cyclists do not at least occasionally proceed through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop (and no, riding at 3MPH is not a complete stop)

The lone study, written in 2010 by Jason Meggs, then a researcher at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, found a 14.5 percent drop in bicycle injury collisions the year after the law took effect and no change in fatalities.

Simply put, that's too thin a reed for a major change in longstanding traffic control laws. You're rolling the dice with people's lives based on a single study of limited applicability. Nor are injuries and fatalities the only metric by which we gauge our traffic laws. And, finally, the end result was predictable for the simple reason that no cyclist has advanced a persuasive argument for why cyclists ought to be treated differently in this respect from other road users.

I'm all for having the Idaho stop be a legal option for cyclists. It would be one less legal reason MPD could harass them such as when DC had a registration law. With negligence laws, anything short of a full stop could be a reason for an insurance claim to be denied.

There are now three studies. Meggs, Whyte and Silva. There's also the word of every DOT and Police official in Idaho as well as those in Aspen and other Colorado towns who have done this.

It's not a major change. It's tiny.

no cyclist has advanced a persuasive argument for why cyclists ought to be treated differently in this respect from other road users.

Two studies of the Idaho stop show that it is measurably safer. One study showed that it resulted in 14% fewer crashes and another indicated that Idaho has less severe crashes. Similarly, tests of a modified form of the Idaho Stop in Paris "found that allowing the cyclists to move more freely cut down the chances of collisions with cars, including accidents involving the car's blind spot." And, less definitively, a study of rolling stops in Seattle determined that "these results support the theoretical assertion that bicyclists are capable of making safe decisions regarding rolling stop." In addition, changing the legal duties of cyclists provides direction to law enforcement to focus attention where it belongs—on unsafe cyclists (and motorists). Furthermore bicycle laws should be designed to allow cyclists to travel swiftly and easily, the Idaho stop provision allows for the conservation of energy.

It has persuaded many people, but some legislators oppose it anyway - because politics.

Then we should wait until we have more data, better studies. A one year drop is not how real studies draw conclusions. As to the conservation of energy point, again, that is not a reason to treat cyclists differently from other road users, who have the exact same goal here.

That's such a strange argument to make, that we shouldn't do it because we don't have much data, and we don't have much data because we don't do it.

The data that are there support doing more of it. But it needs to be shown to work in a large U.S city. I would love for DC to be the leader here, but our politicians are followers, not leaders. I guess it will take NYC or San Francisco showing the way. (SF passed it but the mayor vetoed it, but eventually someone with a spine will do it and we'll get the data and see that the world didn't end.)

The burden of proof rests on those advocating a change. It's hardly a radical position that we should not make a significant change in traffic laws that could negatively impact safety without some proof that it would not do so. I'd be pretty shocked if they didn't have such a requirement, formalized or not.

It's not a courtroom, it's a legislative process. There is absolutely no burden of proof.

It's hardly a radical position that we should not make a significant change in traffic laws that could negatively impact safety without some proof that it would not do so.

It is in fact a radical position. Proof is a very high standard. How exactly would we prove it. It's impossible really. It might remain so even after the fact. And it's not a standard I've ever heard you set for any other change. Not for 3 feet when passing, nor for anti-dooring legislation, cyclists and pedestrians go on PLI, distracted driving laws, etc... This is the only issue for which you set an impossibly high standard. One which if followed every where would mean that no innovation was possible.

You can't try it until you prove it won't harm anyone, but you can't prove it won't hard anyone until you try it.

Idaho 22 has someone said.

But luckily this is legislative process and all we need to do is have a majority of legislators think that it is likely to make things safer - or at least no less - safe. So proof is not necessary. Not unless someone can show me where such proof is requried according to DC law.

We will see it pass when some forward-thinking city passes it and it works. Like bike lanes, once they're seen to be working, other cities will follow, and we will be one of those. Our politicians are followers.

I would just caution cyclists that as far as this issue goes, there's a danger of being in a cyclist echo chamber. You may convince yourself of the rightness of your cause, but it's not one shared--really, at all--outside cyclist circles.

Cyclists blowing through intersections needs to be enforced. It is dangerous, discourteous, and looks bad too. But too often what the police to is cite some poor schmo who stopped for all intents and purposes--yielded the right-of-way but didn't put his foot down and sit around for a few second for no purpose. That's clown-enforcing and counterproductive, leading to making everyone a lawbreaker. Enforce what's important, and allow what's safe: the Idaho stop.

If you're concern is some sort of tone-deafness, then draw that distinction in your posts at Wapo etc.: we want the law enforced for all users, but not petty enforcement of things that don't matter. Enforce what causes a dangerous situation, not little petty differences in grade between a complete stop and an Idaho stop. It's like pulling a motorist over for almost stopping (a rolling stop) and letting everyone else blow through red lights unpunsished, like happens in downtown during most light cycles as they change.